Very true. The process itself is very innefficient and it is very difficult to achieve high thermal efficiency with the Otto cycle. That being said I think todays engines achieve very good efficiency all things considered. There is more to be gained but improvements will be small and will take time.

Like I said not disagreeing just pointing something out for everybodies info.

Yup

Word
keep on preachin.

 

The article say that MPG is at it's lowest since 1988. That is actually a lie. MPG started dropping in the 90's and bottomed out in 95-96 and is now higher than ever.

 

I was thinking we should all go Amish.

Horses have zero emissions.

Errr... zero gaseous emissions...

OK, wait a minute, that ain't right either...

Aw heck, maybe we just oughta walk...

Although my wife will tell you I have emissions problems also. Apparently some problem with my catalytic converter and chili.

 

There is a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline, and we are not even utilizing a majority of it. Just because the engineers cannot figure out how to make it better does not mean that the current mechanical solutions are "nearly optimal."

16.86 million new vehicle sales in 2004, about a 2 million vehicle spread between trucks and cars. I'm not sure that people are actually looking for gas guzzlers when they go to buy a vehicle. Fuel efficiency is probably not a priority but it is not like the consumers are seeking out SUVs or trucks for the sake of lower fuel economy. The SUV became a trendy alternative to the minivan, which somehow received a stigma associated with it even though it possesses no less utility than most SUV's. I'm sure fleet customers or businesses consider fuel economy in their truck purchases, and they aren't looking for the lowest either.

SUV's (and trucks to a certain extent) have the perception of being "safer", nevermind the fact that the smaller lighter car is more competent to avoid the collision in the first place.

An important consideration. If every vehicle had the same mass little cars would fair better in a collision. It's moot because people "need" their SUV's as commuter vehicles.

Either vehicle will be destroyed by a semi of course. Maybe we should all drive Freightliners.

It does not logically follow that in order to complain about people choosing poor fuel economy vehicles that one must do everything, no matter how ridiculous, to reduce their own fuel consumption. Neither is it hypocritical unless said person is consuming as much fuel as the people he is criticizing.

 

A convention ICE is what he's talking about. Combustion turbines for example, have ridiculously low specific fuel consumptions, but only while operating at peak power outputs, and as such, consume huge amounts of fuel. But they do extract more energy from the fuel. Such a powerplant isnt useful in a conventional car because of our driving styles, IE: We want the car to go when we press the gas pedal, and not 20 or 30 seconds later.

 

This is also one reason why trucks, which lack the crumple zones cars incorporate, can be dangerous to occupants.

 

Erm... who told you trucks lack crumple zones???

Take a look at a GMT-800 frame. The entire front of the frame is dedicated to deforming in a collision and absorbing energy.

 

Given current technology, the current solutions are "nearly optimal." Newflash, bub:
Hybrids and electric vehicles aren't taking the world by storm because the ARE NOT optimal solutions. Hydrogen, on the other hand, holds considerable promise.

Do you know how the US gets most of it's electricity? WE BURN COAL.


And your point is.... well... what?

Who precisely are you to limit my choices in what vehicle I wish to buy?

I'm a big boy, thanks, and before we start limiting choices for other people because of your prejudices, yank the sound deadening material out of your car voluntarily.

Driven properly, larger vehicles are inherently safer, simply due to mass.

See above.

Who precisely are you to tell me what I need?

I don't need a 200mph motorcycle either, but this is America darnit and I want to own one, so buzz off.

We'd all be safer, although we couldn't afford it...

Sorry bub, you gotta lead from the front if yer gonna shoot your mouth off.

 

Yes! Yes! No different than someone saying the tax cut was unfair or unnecessary, or arguing that taxes should be raised, but then they go off and itemize their return rather than paying in the maximum.

What's that old saying Charity begins at home? Well, whatever happened to leading by example? I see most people like this author we are discussing (and Hollywood environmentalist types) running around talking about fuel consumption while galivanting around in private jets and chauferring around in stretch SUVs and driving their Lambos on weekends. They want everyone else to pay more taxes and drive more fuel efficient cars and not be able to own a gun, but that doesn't apply to them.

No different than Rosie O'Donnel being the big anti-handgun crusader then come to find out her bodyguard carries one for her protection. Hippocrite!!! What do you think most other people have them for?

I think before you can write an article like this you ought to have to say what vehicles you own, what kind of heat your house uses (gas or heat pump), if you use florescent or incandescent bulbs, etc. Let me see that you actually are making an effort and not just laying the blame for all energy consumption at the feet of the auto industry, which contrary to popular belief does not have limitless piles of cash to do R&D.

 

I didn't say they lack them (and at the boom of SUVs last decade, they essentially did lack them), but they do not absorb/have as much give as a car and therefore deliver more of a collision to the occupant. Unless there has been much progress in this area for trucks in the last couple years, their crumple zones are far less sophisticated than those of cars. I did not believe I was making that bold of a statement.

The issue of car-truck collisions has also brought changes to trucks' bumpers to make them more crash friendly, though it is still an area to hold concern.

 

But a truck, having more mass, will have more inertia at a given speed, and therefore it won't transfer as much energy to the occupant because the differential of speed before and after the accident won't be as great vs the same scenario in a smaller car.

The truck will in effect "plow through" the other object more than a smaller, lighter car will. So instead of going from 60 to 10 you might go from 60-15mph, which means less energy to be dissipated.

Right?

 

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...ar/P106890.asp

329,000 lives saved due to safety devices, NHTSA says....

 

I heard it was more of the interiors of most SUV's and trucks aren't designed to be "human friendly" on the interiors, especially the foot wells.. leg and ankle injuries..

For example, Looking at my Avalanche, I always wonder if I get into a car accident, how much damage that parking brake pedal is going to do to my left shin and knee if it gets smashed into it..

 

I just don't see even a large truck "plowing through" a highway barrier. Not an ideal situation for any vehicle, but I'd rather have more give than less.

 

Please provide your data backing this up.

Crumple zones are a function of size. The bigger the vehicle, the bigger the crumple zone you can have. The bigger the size of the crumple zone, the less acceleration is that is transferred to the occupant's body.

Now, to be fair, you need to compare apples to apples. GMT-800 is basically 10 years old now. GMT-900 with make great progress in this area, so let's stack a car up with GMT-900 when it launches.